Please continue discussion here.

God has to do something much more destructive on april 17th just to prove that the end time is near.

Yes, and we’d all love for that to happen. Nothing like a good disaster to stir up the love of the children, eh?

I suggest we take the same approach with our disobedient children and ramsack their entire living quarters with a bulldozer. That’ll show ‘em.

Damn kids with their…damn theories of evolution and…their…damn hippie music…

Of course man. By all means. Believe whatever you wish — no one here is a member of the Belief Police. ; )

I merely maintain that such belief is irrational, no more so than the belief in a magical candy land on the other side of Pluto.

But, whatever makes you a better person bro!

I am actually nervous but full of excitement to see what will happen. I’m eager to see if Weinland is true or if he is false. And yes, I know all about those increasing thunders, but let’s face it, if those thunders are already biblical catastrophe on March 18th, God has to do something much more destructive on april 17th just to prove that the end time is near. I would say that the reason of why there was no biblical catastrophe on March 18 is that if there was a major catastrophe, most of us would already be dead by now, what’s the point of april 17th then? when April 17th comes and a biblical chaos happens, you would have to make a decision pretty soon.

It’s just 2 days away folks. who would like to go to Walmart to stock all those clam chowder soup loaded with sodium?

Have you ever asked questions to yourself such as what IF something of biblical proportion happens on the 17th? Are you ready?

Please read the 20 or so posts on Revelation. Then read Revelation 22:10. Then make that fit into the 21st century.

Good luck.

You are obviously quite intelligent and utilize strict adherence to logical reasoning that most individuals of faith are unable to comprehend. However, you (like the rest of us) must rely on FAITH in the WORD of others in order to prove your points. That in itself is fallacy.

Thanks for the kind words.

Perhaps you should dig up a dictionary and look up the terms “faith” and “understanding.” We (all) rely on the concepts of language and words, Michael. But the reliance is not ‘faith’. No one says, “Here’s a paper on the evolution of the ERV in great apes. Please just accept this as fact, despite not providing one SHRED of supporting evidence, and do so because I say, ‘Lo, every word in here is true!’”

It is not faith that assures me my TV will turn on when I press the magic button on my remote — it’s reason and understanding. And, likewise, it is not faith that leads me to believe in evolutionary theory, or for that matter postulates on dark matter — it is reason and an understanding of the scientific method. It is also reason based upon experiential evidence that is both testable and falsifiable. Religious experiences fail both of these in stellar fashion.

This same (tired) “atheists need faith too” argument has been soundly refuted elsewhere. I can point you to links if you like. 


There is little doubt that from our birth, we learn most things through repetition and experience. Some things just don’t come to us in that manner though. 1. Why are vegetables appealing? Hunger? Nope. Why? I can present 400 vegetables in a manner that makes them LOOK appealing. None of which would I have the desire to eat. Is it because they were force fed as a child? Nope, I don’t like the SMELL, or TASTE. Are vegetables appealing because I HEARD they were GOOD? Nope. After one or two BAD vegetables, the Pope himself could say it tastes GOOD and I would still say it is BAD. Where am I going with this?

I honestly have no idea.

But, I can save your conjecturing from the standpoint of (a) a well-read layman’s view of evolution, although not by any means a scientist in the subject; and (b) a professional clinical nutritionist (my job), and a qualified expert in the field.

First, vegetables are not “appealing” — they simply are. Many humans have lived their entire lives without consuming vegetables. The Maasai, for example. It is against their religion. Yet they have (dirty word) evolved to not require the phytonutrients.

Second, vegetables were completely unavailable for at least seven months out of the year during our paleolithic period in many regions. Yet man survived. Many paleo nutritionist believe our taste for fruits and vegetables arose out of necessity on long hunts for food, as well as the ability to keep them over periods of time during climate shifts, migration periods, etc.

Finally, like all evolutionary creatures, we have both DNA and RNA transfer. RNA models suggest much of the information we perceived as “intuition”, such as a baby recognizing a face, or (although very weak) our “veggie leaning”, are transferred and passed down. We’re smart little learning machines.

Sorry to take the mystery out of that one… ; )



2. If evolution is truth, why would man evolve in a manner that allows him to only see small bands of light? To hear from only a short distance?

May I ask you a question? When is the last time you picked up a biology textbook?

This is not meant as a slam, but your understanding of what you’re protesting against is woefully weak. It would help to understand the principles behind evolutionary theory before discarding it, don’t you think?

The answer to this one is very simple: the principles of natural selection. Far too much to go into here, although I’m happy to refer you to thousands of articles. However, since we know brains have evolved over time in size and function, it stands to reason that our mental functions have also increased. So, may I ask why you believe our hearing and eyesight has ‘not’ changed significantly over the past two million or so years?



3. Everything in life is a test.

And you know this how?

Magic powers? Divine revelation?

The greatest test of all is FAITH. We all have free will. The freedom to believe whatever we will.

Evidence that says “my belief demands faith” is no evidence at all.



4. Many people believe in God because they were told too. Some because of the remote possibility of going to hell if you don’t. Others still because amoeba does not equal mammal.

We’re back to biology textbooks again. Read.

But, for the record, the lowly amoeba contains the most amount of genetic material BY FAR — including humans.



5. Why are things fun, sad, tragic or interesting? I believe it is because our senses are attacked. We have emotions and I believe that if we evolved to our current selves, then we would have left emotions behind millions of years ago. This is a simple view of why I believe that there is at least a remote possibility of a higher power.

Do you think apes have fun, get sad, experience loss or have interest? If you do not, you have not read Jane Goodall.

The rest is utter conjecture base on how you see the world, and based wholly on a lack of understanding, even at a high school level, of evolutionary biology and natural selection.

Except for that last line — and it’s one I completely agree with. Of COURSE there is a “remote possibility” of a higher power. I have never suggested otherwise. What I do maintain is that every “specific” higher power presents specific evidence. Otherwise you would never know what to call it, what it’s nature was like, etc. The Bible is one such book of ‘evidence’ — and as a former minister, I find it as woefully lacking as most creationists’ take on evolution.

Believe what you want to believe, by all means. I just urge you to establish the reasons why — or, at bare minimum, understand what you choose to reject before doing so.

We’ve been saying that atomic bombs have the ability to destroy the earth back then in 1945; however, we have the ability of destroying earth 40 times today when we could only destroy it once in 1945. What IF Weinland is a true prophet? Well, most of us would stil disregard him.

Have you ever asked questions to yourself such as what IF something of biblical proportion happens on the 17th? Are you ready?

What about this is so difficult for you to understand. I actually think you do, but have the hardest time conceding a point. Fine. If you really don’t understand what I’m saying then I guess I’m just doing a piss-poor job of communicating it coherently and I’m sorry for that.